AV Receiver good enough for high end audio?

In fact, I'm willing to bet that other components in your system would provide the weaker link before the high end receiver (unless you have ultra high end speakers, transports, etc)

I don't think it would be high end if it didn't cost more.A lot of receivers don't give you true power ratings anymore either.And to compare to tube gear....

IIRC the reviewers at Stereophile Ultimate AV claimed the 5800 series Denons sounded as good as most good separates. Of course, the tube/vinyl guys will never agree, but I'm surprised they're not urging a return to a windup victrola with a cactus stylus just to be pure -- electricity gets between you and the waveform.

db

I have an older Elite 7.1 A/V receiver. I now only listen to 2 channel. I considered going with a $1,000 or so integrated amp and some new speakers ($1200 or so for a bookshelf sized pair. I would have to probably shell out closer to $2000 for an integrated to start to hear a major QUALITY difference to justify the purchase(I'm not talking bias characteristics like warm, tubey etc). I decided to place the money all in the speakers first and worry about the amp later.

as a non-techie, i've never fully understood why a well-engineered, no-compromise avr couldn't sound as good as comparably priced separates. now, i know in the real world manufacturers do make compromises, esp. in the amp sections, and that single-box components present challenges with power supplies and internal signal interference. however, i've owned or heard some avrs--most recently arcam avr 600 which sounded awfully good for 2ch music.

I believe a $500 a/v receiver will sound just as good as a $500 2 channel receiver or amp.